Point of law: action of interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner by erecting board in the petitioner’s land is arbitrary exercise of power and it violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, since the property is not the subject matter of attachment under Section 3 and not part of the property is in any criminal petition filed before the Special Court, for making attachment absolute.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner by way of erecting board in the petitioner’s residential plot admeasuring 348.38 sq. yds. situated in Revenue Ward No. 8, Block No. 43, N.T.S. No. 2663, Municipal Ward No. 20A, Old Assessment No. 166694, New Assessment No. 119302, D. No. 23-8-9, Aadi Seshaiah Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and consequently, set-aside the said notice.

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of residential plot admeasuring 348.38 sq. yds. situated in Revenue Ward No. 8, Block No. 43, N.T.S. No. 2663, Municipal Ward No. 20 A, Old Assessment No. 166694, New Assessment No. 119302, D. No. 23- 8-9, Aadi Seshaiah Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, having purchased the same by way of Registered Sale Deed Doc No. 4644 of 2013 dated 05.07.2013. The said property is self acquired property earned out of his hard earnings. The vendor of the petitioner i.e. Agri Gold Constructions Private Limited purchased the said property under registered sale deed document No. 2306 of 2005 dated 02.03.2005. After satisfying the legality of the title and permissions from all the concerned departments, the property was purchased.

3. The C.I.D. officials attached all the properties of Agri Gold Company and attached personal properties of the Directors and key persons of the company vide G.O.Ms. No. 23 Home (ARMS & SPF) Department dated 20.02.2015 (henceforth, G.O.Ms. No. 23 dated 20.02.2015), wherein, various properties of the company in different districts were provisionally attached under Section 3 and Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act’). It is contended that, the property of the petitioner was not shown and his name was also not referred in the G.O.Ms. No. 23 dated 20.02.2015 and no notice was served till date, on this petitioner.

4. While the things stood thus, Respondent No. 3 with the help of local police erected a board at the land of the petitioner in the last week of October, 2020, stating that the property is under attachment by virtue of the orders in G.O.Ms. No. 23 dated 20.02.2015 and directed that no sale transactions shall be done in respect of the petitioner’s property and if anyone violates the same, they will take legal action. But, fact remains that Respondent No. 3 has not at all issued any notice to the petitioner though he is the registered purchaser of the subject property and the said property has nothing to do with G.O.Ms. No. 23 dated 20.02.2015.

5. As per the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the Crime Investigating Department has issued ad-interim attachment orders and also filed petition before the Special Court to make the attachment absolute with regard to company properties. Accordingly, under Section 7 of the Act, the Special Court, Eluru the ad-interim orders of Attachment was made absolute over the properties of the company and the trial of the case is pending. Further, it is contended that, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no power, authority or jurisdiction to erect a board in the land of the petitioner, which has nothing to do with the properties owned and possessed by the Agri Gold Company. In the year 2013 itself, the petitioner purchased the property from the said company and the said company is no more owning or possessing the said property and it has no interest. It is also contended that, by the date of issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 23 dated 20.02.2015, the property of this petitioner is not included in the said G.O. The date of purchase of the property is nearly two years from the dat